Why the EU should patrol Libya

If American and European leaders are correct, it is “game over” for Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi – as NATO’s secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, recently declared.

Best delay the celebration, however. The military and economic noose on the Libyan leader may be tightening, but predictions that NATO’s limited intervention would be quick and decisive have already proved wrong. Moreover, there is a risk that the violent disorder that gripped Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s fall will be replayed in Libya.

The international community should therefore be preparing itself to help maintain basic security in a post-Qaddafi era. But who, precisely, would lead the international community?

No one is volunteering. “We do not foresee a leading NATO role in a post-Qaddafi period,” Rasmussen said last week, with understandable caution, given NATO’s preoccupation with Afghanistan and signs of a fraying political consensus in Europe over Libya. “We want the United Nations to take the lead.”

The UN Security Council might establish a UN-led peacekeeping force, but it could take months to assemble and deploy such a force. Alternatively, it could, in effect, delegate the job to others – as it did in 2001, when it authorised the creation of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

A more viable option would be a UN-authorised ‘bridging’ force to be deployed for four to six months, giving the UN time to set up its own force. Without a NATO lead, the most efficient military solution would be to organise a multinational bridging force under the command and control of one country. But none of the top three contributors to the NATO effort – the US, France and the UK – is prepared to accept that role.

Other attractive options – for example, a Turkish-led coalition of Muslim nations – seem a bridge too far. The African Union’s muddled approach to the crisis should rule it out. A better alternative would be a UN-sanctioned EU force.

To date, the EU has been skittish about military involvement. Although it agreed in April to a minimalist military operation – Eufor Libya – for humanitarian purposes, it stipulated that it would be launched only at the request of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which is reluctant to invite any military involvement.

The EU should reconsider its stance. After all, the raison d’être of its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is, as former French defence minister Alain Richard once put it, to take care of fires in its backyard when NATO is not engaged.

The EU has scaled back its initial ambitions for the CSDP, but it has conducted several (albeit relatively brief, low-risk) peacekeeping missions in Africa. It also has a rotating system of 2,000-strong ‘battle groups’ capable, in principle, of being rapidly deployed for missions of at least four months.

Moreover, the EU advertises its “unique” ability to integrate peacekeeping roles with civilian contributions, from training police to developing government institutions.

An EU bridging force would demonstrate the EU’s political will and practical ability to lead a complex and critically important operation. It could repair the rifts caused by the refusal of several member states to contribute militarily to the current NATO operation. It could also seek support from Turkey, which has provided important military assets to other EU operations.

In doing so, the EU could build upon the work of the ad hoc International Stabilisation Response team – a UK-led team – that is already working with the rebels’ Transitional National Council to plan for a post-Qaddafi Libya.

Finally, the EU could use its ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements with NATO to facilitate, for example, logistical and training support from the alliance.

It could count on the US’s wish to help its European partners avoid needless military risks. The US could also support EU stabilisation and reconstruction efforts. (Integrating US civilians into EU teams has been easier since a little-noticed bilateral agreement signed this May.)

Is the EU up to such a task? Many, on both sides of the Atlantic, are sceptical, especially given Europe’s preoccupation with its financial and economic woes. But Europe will be the first to suffer the fall-out if a post-Qaddafi Libya explodes into violence.

John Herbst is a retired US ambassador and director of the Center for Complex Operations at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University in Washington, DC. Leo Michel is a research fellow at the same institution. The views expressed here are their own.

Authors:

Related stories on these topics:

Glad to see you are so busy fantasyzing. I dont know if its deliberate ignorance on your part, but you are charicaturing Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya. Gaddafi and his govt brought Libya from lowest development in Africa to Highest. It has no debt and lower poverty, higher education longevity, and vastly lower percent incarceration than here in the US. Women have full equal rights. A large number of Libyans are fighting for their country. Not for mercenary motives. Also as you may know – these mercenaries in some cases – are loyal to Libya as a leader of African Nationalism – the best friend of Mandela’s ANC as it struggled.

Glad to see you are so busy fantasyzing. I dont know if its deliberate ignorance on your part, but you are charicaturing Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya. Gaddafi and his govt brought Libya from lowest development in Africa to Highest. It has no debt and lower poverty, higher education longevity, and vastly lower percent incarceration than here in the US. Women have full equal rights. A large number of Libyans are fighting for their country. Not for mercenary motives. Also as you may know – these mercenaries in some cases – are loyal to Libya as a leader of African Nationalism – the best friend of Mandela’s ANC as it struggled.

Glad to see you are so busy fantasyzing. I dont know if its deliberate ignorance on your part, but you are charicaturing Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya. Gaddafi and his govt brought Libya from lowest development in Africa to Highest. It has no debt and lower poverty, higher education longevity, and vastly lower percent incarceration than here in the US. Women have full equal rights. A large number of Libyans are fighting for their country. Not for mercenary motives. Also as you may know – these mercenaries in some cases – are loyal to Libya as a leader of African Nationalism – the best friend of Mandela’s ANC as it struggled.

Glad to see you are so busy fantasyzing. I dont know if its deliberate ignorance on your part, but you are charicaturing Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya. Gaddafi and his govt brought Libya from lowest development in Africa to Highest. It has no debt and lower poverty, higher education longevity, and vastly lower percent incarceration than here in the US. Women have full equal rights. A large number of Libyans are fighting for their country. Not for mercenary motives. Also as you may know – these mercenaries in some cases – are loyal to Libya as a leader of African Nationalism – the best friend of Mandela’s ANC as it struggled.

Posted on 7/14/11 | 1:27 AM CET

Edward

“Why the EU should patrol Libya” I suppose you wrote this article because “Why the EU should NOT patrol Libya” would take too long to write.

Posted on 7/14/11 | 5:03 AM CET

Edward

“Why the EU should patrol Libya” I suppose you wrote this article because “Why the EU should NOT patrol Libya” would take too long to write.

Posted on 7/14/11 | 5:03 AM CET

Edward

“Why the EU should patrol Libya” I suppose you wrote this article because “Why the EU should NOT patrol Libya” would take too long to write.

Posted on 7/14/11 | 5:03 AM CET

Edward

“Why the EU should patrol Libya” I suppose you wrote this article because “Why the EU should NOT patrol Libya” would take too long to write.

Posted on 7/14/11 | 5:03 AM CET

J. Tattersall

If neither France nor the UK wish to get involved then it is difficult to see who else in the EU would be competent to do the task. An EU bridging force could well be a bridge too far.

Posted on 7/14/11 | 2:34 PM CET

J. Tattersall

If neither France nor the UK wish to get involved then it is difficult to see who else in the EU would be competent to do the task. An EU bridging force could well be a bridge too far.

Posted on 7/14/11 | 2:34 PM CET

J. Tattersall

If neither France nor the UK wish to get involved then it is difficult to see who else in the EU would be competent to do the task. An EU bridging force could well be a bridge too far.

Posted on 7/14/11 | 2:34 PM CET

J. Tattersall

If neither France nor the UK wish to get involved then it is difficult to see who else in the EU would be competent to do the task. An EU bridging force could well be a bridge too far.